Category: Ethnic considerations

Chit Chatting w/ an Alienist on the Wisdom of Inter-Racial Marriage

Dear Rachel Bentley Ramey ….

Clearly all humans are humans but that does not mean that within the one human race there does not exist distinctions among races and ethnicity. The Holy Spirit understood this as expressed in Roman 9:3

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race…

Silly Holy Spirit. Didn’t he know that there is only one race… the human race?

RBR wrote,

Except…I actually do believe this. If a Christian man and a Christian woman are both at a proper stage of life *to marry*, there’s no biblical barrier to their marrying *each other*. And such has been commonly accepted throughout most of history; it’s far from a novel position.)

BLM responds,

55 y/o Christian women marrying 18 y/o Christian men does have a proper barrier. Marriage is about finding the right helpmeet — one who can join in the work of exercising Dominion for Jesus Christ — as a reflected image of one another (hence helpmeet). Plus, as 55 y/o Christian women would not be Biblical for a 18 y/o Christian man since they could not obey God’s requirement to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Marriage has as one purpose to support the community from which it arises. Inter-racial marriages normatively cannot do that. Indeed, the only community that inter-racial marriage supports is a multi-cultural cosmopolitan community. Now we can pretend that is not true that inter-racial marriages do not normatively support the community wherein it is located but we have only to lift our eyes to see how our social order is fracturing. One reason for that (not the only reason) is the proliferation of unequally yoked inter-racial marriages.

And I promise you… what you are suggesting is indeed novel when looking at world history. Marriages in stable communities throughout world history were the union of two people who shared the same religion, culture, race, language, and history. Denying that is just silly.

I do think there is a one and many reality about mankind. Man is one and yet there are clearly racial and ethnic distinctions. It is why God could say in Acts 17

26 From one man (Unity) he made all the nations (Distinctions among the Unity), that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

So, we see here your argument about there being only one race (the human race) and therefore there are no races of men is not accurate. Indeed, it is only in the last 50 years or so wherein we have found arguments popular that “there there is only one race,” or, “race is a social construct.”

You’ll not be surprised to hear me say that it is you I find unable to think in proper categories. But, as that is not uncommon in the West you should not be too upset by that.

Your counter examples of Rahab, Zipporah, and Ruth do not work but I am not inclined to run through that all again in detail.

Here are some links/thoughts though

Concerning Rahab

Concerning Ruth

Ruth was not an ethnic Moabite, she was an Israelite. For over 200 years Ruben, Gad and half of Manasseh occupied all the territory north of the Arnon to MT Hermon. Part of that territory was once Moab’s but the Amorites under King Sihon took it. Moab tried to take it back and for about 18 years succeeded, at least in that area. Israel fought back and it’s during this time that Naomi’s sons died. Boaz, a righteous Jew, followed the Torah’s steps as Kinsmen Redeemer. As per the Deut. 23:3 prohibition, Boaz could not have redeemed Ruth had she been a true Moabite. Just as a Puerto Rican living in New York City is an American so Ruth living in the land of Moab was still Israelite. Boaz redeemed a fellow Israelite when he served as Naomi and Ruth’s Kinsmen Redeemer. Ruth was a Moabite Israelite, which like many had done in Israel, may have worshiped the local deities but after her husband died chose to repent returning to Judah’s territory with Naomi.

RBR wrote:

Inter-ethnic couples are presented with the added challenge of having to deal with bigots like you. Their divorce rate might be lower if you didn’t make yourself an extra enemy.

BLM

Right… so given those extra challenges that you recognize it is a lack of wisdom to press ahead with marriage in the teeth of all that. Clearly, you’re bigotry against me is acceptable so I’m not sure what the problem is with bigotry in general as long as one is bigoted towards the proper things. You are bigoted against Kinists — a bigotry which is errant. I am bigoted against marriages about to be unwisely contracted. I am bigoted against people entering into marriages unwisely.

In my defense though I’m also bigoted against marriages contracted between people coming form vastly different classes, vastly different cultures, and those who have a vastly different health status. Call me silly, but I think those entering into marriage should have as much in common as possible and I am bigoted against marriages about to be contracted that find the differences to be significant and doubtless abiding.

I’ll just note that your comment about melanin is irrelevant since since race is not merely a matter of melanin just as gender is not merely a matter of plumbing.

You are an Alienist. Alienism requires us to ignore all the implications and deductions that we find throughout scripture is favor of pursuing a cafe-latte world where all colors bleed into one.

The Alienists tried that once before.

It was called Babel.

Cheers,

Winston McCuen on Jewish Perfidy

 

 

In 1543, the German Reformation leader Martin Luther wrote a treatise by the title, “On the Jews and their Lies.” Luther’s beef with the Jews was about their false theology and belief, not their race. The Talmud — the very foundation and centerpiece of Jewish cultural life since the Roman Empire — teaches that Jesus was a bastard conceived from an evil spirit by a whore mother during menstruation, that he had Esau’s soul, and was a fool, an evil man, a conjurer, a seducer, and was crucified, then buried in hell and subsequently idolized by his followers. For centuries, Talmudic Jews have taught their children that Christians are dung-like, beast-like, murderers, fornicators, unclean and hell-bound children of Satan. Thus Judaism became the first anti-Christian heresy.

 

So Luther, despising these wicked blasphemies against the Lord and His Church, longed to see Jews saved by conversion to the true religion. But, as Luther grew older and more familiar with Jewish blasphemy and Jewish sniff-necked, wealth and power-obsessed recalcitrance, his earlier, youthful evangelical optimism turned to skepticism and even pessimism. Like Luther, Christians today are commissioned and commanded to spread the Gospel. But also like Luther, we are obliged to distinguish honestly and clearly, as our lights allow, between carnal or unbelieving Jews — like most of the Pharisees, Judas lscariot, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Freud and MANY others — and converted, regenerate, Christian Jews — like the eleven disciples, Stephen the martyr, the Apostle Paul, and NOT so many others. So the Jews are a byword among the nations (1 Kings 9:6-9), scattered (Amos 9:9:Luke 21:24) — with many being active and implacable enemies of the Church (Philippians 3:2-3) and  subverters of family and society (Titus 1:10-11) — and only a remnant from them will be saved (Romans 9:27-29).

 

In the Bible we find bitter complaints and righteous condemnations by a Jewish Christ and His Jewish believers against their carnal Jewish brethren: by Moses in the Pentateuch (Ex. 32, Num. 26: 9, Deut. 11: 6); by Jesus in His Gospels (John 8: 37,44, 10: 26, 19:11); and by Paul in his letters (Romans 9: 27,10:2-3; 11:5). Thus does Scripture warn believers of the perfidious modus operandi of the carnal Jew. Indeed, those who warn seem to commend segregation — a forced Zionism, for the good of all.

 

In the Jew-controlled West today, a “racist” is anyone an anti-White person doesn’t like; while an “anti-Semite” is anyone a carnal Jew wishes to smear. The statesman’s rule of thumb? Find a problem; and typically you find the carnal Jew behind it as cause. Meanwhile, certain Biblically illiterate Gentiles — of dubious faith (Matt. 13:13, 21), known by their fruits (Matt.7:20), ever cowering before man (Prov. 29:25) on the broad way (Matt. 7:13-14) — serve as flaks and enablers for the carnal Jews, who vainly tried to murder and end Christ on the Cross (John 19:11). Ever oblivious to their Jewish masters’ lies and machinations, these useful idiots, these stupid goyim, these clueless simpletons, handle the Word of God ineptly (2 Tim. 2:15) and deceitfully (2 Cor.2:17) and adulterate by addition and subtraction (Rev. 22, 18-19) while stumbling over and braying like grassless asses (Job 6:5) at all deeper Biblical truths, including free will, election and the dispensational evolution of Israel.

 

But the Lord ordered all things before the beginning of the world, and nothing happens apart from His Perfect Plan. So carnal man — whether Jew or Gentile — can run but not hide. All unbelief, all carnality — was defeated on the Cross two millennia ago, and at the Judgment, there will be no atheists or agnostics or false religionists, and every knee shall bow before the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Winston McCuen, Ph.D. (philosophy)

Ron Unz on Jewish Perfidy

“Back in those late Cold War days, the death toll of innocent civilians from the Bolshevik Revolution and the first two decades of the Soviet Regime were generally reckoned at running well into the tens of millions when we include the casualties of the Russian Civil War, the government-induced famines, the Gulag and the executions. I’ve heard that these numbers have been substantially revised downwards to perhaps as little as twenty million or so, but no matter. Although determined Soviet apologists may dispute such very large figures, they have always been part of the standard narrative history taught within the West.

Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelming Jewish, with three of the five revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government, and estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston Churchill, Times of London correspondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of the American Military Intelligence. Recent books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Yuri Slezkine, and others have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to WW II, Jews remained enormously over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top ranks of the NKVD.

Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to WW II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murders of the 20th century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.”

Ron Unz
Understanding World War II — p. 203-204

Ron Unz is Jewish.

McAtee Interrogates Wilson Interview on Kinism

In a recent interview Rev. Doug Wilson blames the rise of evil Kinism on the progressive left. Doug reasons that “If the progressive left had not vilified White people for a generation white people would not have over-reacted by embracing Kinism (paraphrase).”

While Doug could be correct here Doug’s problem is Doug does not mention who comprises the progressive left. Who is it precisely who has comprised the progressive left to the end of vilifying white people?

 Doug won’t go here because the answer to that question is “the school of Cultural Marxism has been the animating force behind the progressive left,” that Dougie blames for the rise of evil evil Kinism. Now we ask, “Why won’t Doug name Cultural Marxism as the animating force for the rise of the progressive left which has in turn been met with the rise (in Dougie’s world) of evil Kinism)?”

The answer to that question is that it points to the Jewish Intellectuals. The intellectual fire power behind Cultural Marxism has been Jewish intellects and then from there Jewish intellects co-opted the non-Caucasian races in Western lands to be the foot soldiers who did the long march through white western Christian institutions. Now, before Doug or any of his imps protest, I quite concede that there have been white people who jumped on the progressive left/Cultural Marxist Jewish bandwagon, however that does not in the least negate my observations above. Likewise I freely and gladly admit that there are sundry non-Caucasians who are in adamant opposition to the Jewish program of the progressive left/cultural Marxist agenda. We are talking here in terms of real generalities and not in terms of universals.

But Doug won’t name the Jewish intellectuals as the animating power behind the progressive left/cultural Marxism because, after all, all his Grandchildren have Jews for grandparents. What’s more Doug’s wife is 13% Jewish and Doug is himself 3% Jewish. As such Doug dare not name Jewish intellectuals as the problem. Instead evil white Kinism is a excessive response to the bland vanilla progressive left. Doug has no problem attacking white people as white people but you will never hear him speak of the problem of Jewish intellectuals.

In such a way Dougie can rail against evil Kinism while only hammering “the progressive left,” meanwhile leaving unnamed Jewish intellectuals who are seeking to tear down Western Christian Civilization. For Doug then the problem is;

A.) Evil Progressives
B.) Wicked over-reacting white Kinists
C.) But not a word touching Jewish intellectuals

Further Doug Wilson offers in this interview that Kinism is an over-reacting to white people being vilified. This over-reaction is seen in the Kinist statement, in the face of progressive accusations denouncing white people that, “that white people are the best thing that has ever happened because their white.”

I am a Kinist. I know lots of Kinists. I don’t know of any one Kinist who doesn’t understand and embrace that white people suffer from total depravity. This is the classic fallacy of red herring on Dougie’s part.

Then there is the issue that in this interview Rev. Wilson assumes throughout that only white people are Kinists. This is another bone-headed premise. I know plenty of non-Caucasian people who are Kinist.

It is clear here that Wilson really is out of his depths on this question.

Elsewhere Wilson says,

“Kinism teaches that if the progressive left, are going to accuse Kinists of being a thief then Kinists conclude, I might as well steal something.”

Doug Wilson

In reality what Kinism teaches, at least among white Kinists, is that we are no longer going to wallow in a false guilt and since we are not going to wallow in a false guilt we are going to praise our forefathers instead of being ashamed of them or apologizing for them. White Kinists teach that we are no longer going to put up with the slander and libel that comes from Alienists. White Kinists teach that there is nothing wrong with being grateful for our heritage recognizing that part of being grateful for our heritage is defending that heritage against the guilt mongers in our midst.

Doug Wilson teaches that Gospel prohibits both all racial malice and all racial vainglory.

Someone please get a memo to the Holy Spirit who said;

Titus 1:12As one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true.

Now if this isn’t racial malice, inspired by the Holy Spirit, I don’t know what racial malice is.


And in terms of racial vainglory St. Paul can say of the Jews;

Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Wilson, in the interview, by affirming a love for one’s grandmother, great-grandmother, etc. gives us a tribalism and goes on to say things that most Kinists would salute. But then he turns around and seeks to push outside the camp those people who say the very same thing he says in generically defining what is good about loving one’s own people. In doing so Doug sets himself up as the gatekeeper and throws everyone else under the bus. From there Wilson having fleshed out the generic statement of what he has given  contradicts much of his own general outline in other statements.

For example in the past Wilson has argued against a Kinist like policy of protectionism that would favor nearby producers (Kin) versus producers in Peking. Per Wilson, in a particularly cringe moment, Free Grace leads to Free Markets which leads to free trade. Wilson has argued for a immigration policy that finds the US seeking to assimilate those who are not assimilable.

So, per Doug’s usual modus operandi, Doug speaks out of both sides (maybe even several sides) of his mouth. Doug says general principles that kinists would salute. That is good. However when talking about details Doug often advances Alienists (opposite of Kinist) arguments. That is bad.

Doug Wilson & His Negative Obsession with Kinists

Recently, Rev. Doug “nobody is to my right” Wilson did a interview where he spends time denouncing Kinims for its putative racial malice and racial vainglory. You can find it here;

Start at 31 minutes.

In typical Wilson fashion, Wilson speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. It is as if Wilson wants to be a half a Kinist, while getting to decide where the half is the he occupies at any given time while condemning those who don’t occupy his half.

The problem is that throughout Church history the fathers have said things that by Wilson’s definition, Wilson would have to consider as “racial vainglory,” and/or “racial malice.”

Today we give just one example. We will hope to give more as time passes.

Here we quote from the Early Church Father John Chrysostom to demonstrate that Wilson, were he consistent, (and he seldom is … just consider how he tap danced all over the place on the FV issue) would have to accuse Chrysostom of “racial malice,” and “racial vainglory.”

“Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Being a man of
a barbarous nation, occupied with numerous cares, and surrounded on all sides by manifold business, he was unable to understand that which he read.”

Four discourses Of Chrysostom
Chiefly on the parable of Lazarus And The Rich Man – p. 66

In Doug Wilson’s world Chrysostom has to be condemned as a Kinist practicing racial malice and racial vainglory since Chrysostom dared to say that the Ethiopian eunuch came from a “barbarous nation.” I mean, really, the malice expressed in that sentiment is off the charts. Also, one would have to be vainglorious here since barbarous is being defined by the standard of Nations that are not barbarous, no doubt one of which Chrysostom belonged.

Wilson’s problem in this whole Kinist thing is akin to the chap who concludes that all Christians are wicked because his first exposure to Christianity was witnessing Christians burning witches. Similarly, Wilson’s first exposure to Kinism was a Kinism that many times was unhinged and Wilson then concluded that all Kinism is like the unhinged Kinism he encountered 20 years ago. The man does not have enough discernment to realize that his generic statements about Kinism are not universally held by all Kinists just as all Christians don’t unjustly burn women who really are not witches.

Really, the fact of the matter boils down to just this. If you don’t agree with Doug Wilson precisely on the issue of race he is going to try to read you out of being Christian.

I don’t think he is going to succeed.